Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Honors Theses University Honors Program 5-2017 CURATING CURIOSITY: THE EVOLUTION OF MUSEOLOGICAL THEORY IN THE LATE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY AT THE BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE SAINTE-GENEVIÈVE Erin L. Anderson Southern Illinois University Carbondale, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/uhp_theses Recommended Citation Anderson, Erin L., "CURATING CURIOSITY: THE EVOLUTION OF MUSEOLOGICAL THEORY IN THE LATE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY AT THE BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE SAINTE-GENEVIÈVE" (2017). Honors Theses. 425. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/uhp_theses/425 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the University Honors Program at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 CURATING CURIOSITY: THE EVOLUTION OF MUSEOLOGICAL THEORY IN THE LATE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY AT THE BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE SAINTE-GENEVIÈVE By: Erin Anderson Imagine a museum. Odds are, you’ve pictured collections of art, historical artifacts, and natural history objects, yet the term “museum” can be applied as truthfully to these quintessential collections as to a diverse community of zoos, aquariums, planetariums, children’s museums, arboretums, historical sites, and “living history” programs. Just as it would be inappropriate to treat these institutions as equals, it would be entirely inaccurate to assume that museums have always been as we understand them to be today. Museums have developed and changed over time in response to socio-cultural and political movements, expanding global exchange networks, and advances in scientific theory. In recent years, historians have begun to challenge traditional definitions and parameters of collections and to consider the influence of exhibit design, audience experience, the relationship between collections, the role of inventories and catalogs, and other previously underrepresented facets of museological theory. This paper aims to further this discussion by examining the evolution of early modern museological theory in so- called “cabinets of curiosities” by comparing the methods of acquisition, display, and organization in late seventeenth century Europe to those of the previous century and the modern era. The well-documented cabinet of curiosities contained within the Bibliothèque de Sainte- Geneviève in Paris, France, provides an excellent model to better understand this transitionary period. However, in order to do so, we must first begin by describing the state of early modern collections. New and expanding studies of the history of collecting have greatly diversified our understanding of the curators, content, and locations of collections. To name only a few examples from the early modern era, physicians, apothecaries, and botanists built up assortments of natural specimens in greenhouses and workshops for medicinal and chemical purposes; 2 nobility collected art, exotic treasures, and weaponry in specially-designed palace rooms; and artists amassed eclectic collections of disparate objects to be used as models for still lifes.1 Unlike Wunderkammern, which were typically established by relatively elite collectors (often wealthy merchants or nobles) and arose from a Renaissance desire for antiquities and increasing exchange with non-European lands, many other forms of collections were informal gatherings of objects lacking permanence or reliable documentation. As Bert van der Roemer has pointed out, our modern views on early modern collecting have likely been skewed toward the experiences of collectors in the upper strata of society because those of lower status often left fewer records with which to study their collections.2 For this reason, cabinets of curiosities remain a comparatively better documented genre of collection than other varieties, making them particularly useful for tracing changes over time. Furthermore, we should not assume that even within a single genre of collections that the contents of individual cabinets were identical. As Krzysztof Pomian notes in his study of early modern collections, “Completely homogenous collections seem, however, to have been exceptions, and the varying proportions of objects from different catalogs to be found in museums which were…contemporaneous apparently reflected differences in wealth, education, 1 Giuseppe Olmi, “Science-Honour-Metaphor: Italian Cabinets of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in The Origin of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth- Century Europe, ed. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 6; Benjamin Schmidt, “Collecting Global Icons: The Case of the Exotic Parasol,” in Collecting Across Cultures: Material Exchanges in the Early Modern Atlantic World, ed. Daniela Bleichmar and Peter C, Mancall (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 32-33. 2 While I have no desire to discount the experiences and influence of these genres of collection, it would nevertheless be impossible to examine each of these unique collections adequately in this discussion. For this reason, I have chosen to restrict this discussion to the so-called “cabinets of curiosities,” or Wunderkammern. Bert Van de Roemer, “Neat Nature: The Relation Between Nature and Art in a Dutch Cabinet of Curiosities from the Early Eighteenth Century,” History of Science 42, no. 1 (2004): 49. 3 or social rank between their owners, as well as the distance separating them from the centers where new fashions were born and nurtured and not to mention national, categorical, and individual differences in interest and taste.”3 In describing the nature of Wunderkammern in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries below, I have attempted to present only characteristics which most scholars agree define such collections as a unique genre of collection during this period; it is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all traits or indicative of each unique collection across such a broad geographic and chronological expanse. There are undoubtedly examples of assemblages which will contradict the generalizations I have offered, which only further evidences the variable, diverse, and evolving nature of early modern collections. The cabinets of curiosities established during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries were designed to create a sensationalist microcosm of the known universe to the benefit of their possessors, usually those of an elite or merchant background.4 Private owners, especially those who were noble or especially wealthy, often used their collections to symbolically express power and dominion over the world by owning a diverse collection of rare, valuable, and often exotic items.5 Ultimately, the exact nature of items within a collection mattered very little so 3 Krzysztof Pomian, Collectors and Curiosities: Paris and Venice, 1500-1800 (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), 48. 4 Olmi, “Science-Honour-Metaphor,” 5; Deanna Macdonald, “Collecting a New World: The Ethnographic Collections of Margaret of Austria,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 33, no. 3 (2002): 663; Alexander Marr, introduction to Curiosity and Wonder from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, ed. R. J. W. Evans and Alexander Marr (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006), 15. 5 Colonialism and the exploration of newly claimed territories across the globe created a frenzy of interest in foreign objects and exotic images further fueled by European reproductions and representations in the forms of plays, images, literature, exhibitions, and the like. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor, introduction to The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe, ed. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 2; Schmidt, “Collecting Global Icons, 33; MacDonald, “Collecting a New World,” 663. 4 long as they could induce a feeling of wonder in visitors. Describing a gift of splendid Aztec treasures for the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, conquistador Hernán Cortés wrote, “In addition to their intrinsic worth, they are so marvelous that considering their novelty and strangeness they are priceless.”6 The rare and often anomalous items were far more valuable than the cost of their materials. Less prestigious owners used their collections as a form of “cultural capital” to gain fame by providing a spectacle for a public audience by displaying exceptional and anomalous objects en masse.7 The presence of such objects in a collection could bestow prominence on its owner by enticing high status visitors and wide public attention. Additionally, the larger the volume of items within a collection, the greater the symbolic and aesthetic impact.8 Innumerable artificialia and naturalia of imprecise geographic origins blended chaotically on the walls, shelves, and ceilings of Wunderkammern to heighten this sensation.9 The owners exploited the aesthetic and marvelous aspects of their collections for personal gain. For this reason, the contents of collections varied widely according to personal preferences, the availability of items, and the financial means of the curator.10 Not surprisingly, today’s museums are quite different from their early modern counterparts. Perhaps one of the most useful models for understanding the evolution of modern museological theory is Adam Gopnik’s progression from the antiquated “museum as 6 Carina L. Johnson, “Aztec Regalia and the Reformation of Display,” in Collecting